On Friday 09 January 2009 10:13:26 Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 09:38:33AM +0200, George Danchev wrote:
> > > I'd appreciate if someone else could sponsor this for now; my
> > > internets are slow ATM.
> >
> > whohas 0.22-1 uploaded.
>
> Cheers!
Jonathan,
I forgot to
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 09:38:33AM +0200, George Danchev wrote:
> > I'd appreciate if someone else could sponsor this for now; my
> > internets are slow ATM.
>
> whohas 0.22-1 uploaded.
Cheers!
Jonathan
--
Jonathan Wiltshire
PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB8
On Friday 09 January 2009 07:38:48 Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire
>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 07:52:37PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> >> Either is fine, slight leaning towards no need for a bump (so I don't
> >> have to remember to use debuild -v...).
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 07:52:37PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
>> Either is fine, slight leaning towards no need for a bump (so I don't
>> have to remember to use debuild -v...).
>
> NP, uploaded to the same location.
I'd appreciate if someo
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 07:52:37PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> Either is fine, slight leaning towards no need for a bump (so I don't
> have to remember to use debuild -v...).
NP, uploaded to the same location.
--
Jonathan Wiltshire
PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E D
On Thu, January 8, 2009 11:19, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> Devref mentions NEWS.Debian as a changelog supplement: "This is the
> preferred means to let the user know [...] changes in a package" [1]. I
> didn't use README.Debian as the same paragraph seems to discourage this,
> but if you think it w
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 07:37:52PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
>>
>> I interpret that as being the changes since earlier versions of the
>> package, rather than changes to the upstream source code.
>
> Ok, if you think README.Debian is accept
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 07:37:52PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> I interpret that as being the changes since earlier versions of the
> package, rather than changes to the upstream source code.
Ok, if you think README.Debian is acceptable I will move the notes to
there.
Would you like a version bum
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 03:26:45PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
>> > I've also included a NEWS file detailing the patches
>> > that are still active.
>>
>> I don't think that is an appropriate use of NEWS.Debian, documenting
>> them in the pat
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 03:26:45PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> > I've also included a NEWS file detailing the patches
> > that are still active.
>
> I don't think that is an appropriate use of NEWS.Debian, documenting
> them in the patch headers should be enough. You might want to check
> policy/dev
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 11:00:23AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> Great. As I think this can be very useful to Debian developers, I have
> added a news item to the DeveloperNews queue, which will be posted to
> debian-devel-annnounce sometime in the near future:
> http://wiki.debian.org/DeveloperN
Hi Jonathan,
On Thu, January 8, 2009 07:26, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Jonathan Wiltshire
> wrote:
>> I have uploaded whohas 0.22-1 to m.d.n, which is a new upstream
>> integrating a lot of the bugs, and some tweaks to the packaging because
>> of his changes.
Great. As I
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Jonathan Wiltshire
wrote:
> I have uploaded whohas 0.22-1 to m.d.n, which is a new upstream
> integrating a lot of the bugs, and some tweaks to the packaging because
> of his changes.
...
> I've also included a NEWS file detailing the patches
> that are still activ
Hi Paul
I have uploaded whohas 0.22-1 to m.d.n, which is a new upstream
integrating a lot of the bugs, and some tweaks to the packaging because
of his changes. I've also included a NEWS file detailing the patches
that are still active.
Lintian -iI seems to be clean, and I have tested each of the
14 matches
Mail list logo
